3. Assignment: Argument Evaluation
· Read the article “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11” on pp. 456-458 of Appendix 1.
· Identify at least two arguments in the article. Outline the premises and conclusions of
each argument you find. Then, answer the following questions for each argument,
making sure to explain how you arrived at your answers.
o Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?
o Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or
weak?
o Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove?
· Note that you may choose to evaluate invalid or weak arguments as long as you describe
how they are invalid or weak.
CRT 205 Critical Thinking
Course Syllabus Page 20

The first argument of comparing automobile accident to 9/11 terrorist attack is an hallow argument. Why? Because automobile accident are not planned meanwhile 9/11 terrorist attack was pre-meditated and planned in advance. Therefore, the impact of 9/11 was national and nature because the whole country was threathened by the possibility of other terrorist attacks.

The second argument is the comparison of 9/11 in America to greater disasters like the 20,000 people killed in India. It is a fact of human nature that a tragedy at home like 9/11 as a much greater impact than one occurring in another land.

The facts as outlined in both arguments do indeed support the premises and conclusions.

The arguments are weak because of the comparisons outlined in the premises and conclusions.

The premises are true and make perfect sense. They are a fact of nature, therefore, they are not difficult to prove.

The first argument (omit "of") comparing authomobile accidents to the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a hollow argument. Why? Because automobile accidents are not planned, while 9/11 terrorist attacks were pre-meditated and planned in advance. Therefore, the impact of 9/11 was national and nature because the whole country was threathened by the possibility of other terrorist attacks.

What do you mean by the above underlined words?

The second argument is the comparison of 9/11 in America to greater disasters like the 20,000 people killed in India. It is a fact of human nature that a tragedy at home like 9/11 has a much greater impact than one occurring in another land.

The facts as outlined in both arguments do indeed support the premises and conclusions.

The arguments are weak because of the comparisons outlined in the premises and conclusions.

The premises are true and make perfect sense. They are a fact of nature, therefore, they are not difficult to prove.

In the first argument, the writer is trying to establish a plausible argument on catastrophic events, such as the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center, and how we as Americans are more susceptible to react with rage, when an event of this magnitude hits closer to home. Although the writer accurately describes, how a loss of 20,000 lives in India did not have the same form of coverage or reaction amongst the America public, it does not, however, properly depict the whole truth. This was simply a statement that may be true in nature, but does not have the proper facts to convincingly support the writer statements. One such reason for the different levels of intense, in the reaction to these current events, may be that we have always seen the World Trade Towers as a pinnacle of our world dominance, whereas, the country of India has always been seen as an emerging country, where poverty and decease runs ramped. It is for this reason that I labeled this passage as an invalid argument. The supporting facts were merely points of references that were put into the passage, so as to prove a point, without much warrant or credence.
The second argument suggests that the carnage from automobile accidents in the United States, has bought about a progressive change that has took 20 years to perfect. If we, as a nation, took these same responsive measures, to cure and remedy the terrorist threats levied on American soil, then we would have a greater degree of success. Instead, America has resulted to scare tactics on aircrafts and in the general population as whole, in its quest to crush terrorism. Again the author tries to establish an argument, with factual statements that have no strong correlation between cause and effect. For this reason again, I have again labeled this as an invalid argument.

Determine what makes each source credible or not credible. In addition to the steps you should follow to determine the credibility of a source, be aware of any biases or fallacies in the materials.
Explain what information you think you will be able to use from each source.
Use Appendix D to complete this CheckPoint.
Post Appendix D as an attachment in your Individual forum.

" Several weeks later it was clear that fewer than half that many had actually
died, but was there a great sigh of relief when it was learned that over 3,000
people who were believed to have died were still alive? Not at all. "

During the Vietnam War, Mr. Jones had lost his only son in 1970. Tim Jones was a tail-gunner who had fought in some of the worst possible areas during that conflict. Sam Kinney, a friend and neighbor for over twenty years also had a son who was stationed in Hanoi, 1968 and 1970. Sam Kinney Jr. arrived home, on his fathers footsteps the very same day same day that Mr. Jones, just two houses down, had received the news that Tim had been shotdown and killed in battle.

In this above scenario, is it possible that human nature would deny Mr. Kinney's want or need of a great sigh of relief in the face of such a tragic loss for his best friend?

It seems like the writers statement is off-base, unfounded, or unreal.